Tag Archive for: reliability of the New Testament

Have We Lost the Message of the New Testament?

Have We Lost the Message of the New Testament?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Lost the Plot?

Have we somehow lost the message of the New Testament through irreparable corruptions of the text? That’s what some people wonder when the conversation turns to the issue of textual variants—differences in the biblical manuscripts we’ve discovered over the years.

Maybe you’ve got a friend or a co-worker who tends to be pretty skeptical of the Bible right from the get-go. For many like them, the issues surrounding the Bible can make it tough to read it for themselves and give it a fair hearing. For example, people who saw Bart Ehrman on the Cobert Report or read his books might come away doubting that the text of the New Testament is still intact after all these years.

Today, I still hear well-meaning believers say we’ve just got to “give people the Bible.” But more and more, I see the need to engage the tough questions about why we should take the Bible seriously. So I wanted to share this video with you. It’s Darrell Bock, Ben Witherington, and Dan Wallace talking about textual variants in the New Testament.

What do Textual Variants Really Mean?

I’m honored to say I studied Greek under Dr. Wallace at Dallas Theological Seminary. At this DTS event, he answers the questions, “Are there really hundreds of thousands of textual differences in our New Testament manuscripts?” and “so what?” In other words, what do all these numbers really mean?

We Haven’t Lost the Message

Check out these four categories of textual variants and see why even 400,000 differences don’t need to shake our faith. The first two categories won’t help anyone come up with a new conspiracy theory about how the church has been secretly changing the Bible over the years. But as Wallace said, it might cure your insomnia.

  1. Most textual variants are just spelling differences

Ever seen the word “color” spelled “colour” in a book? You probably wouldn’t be surprised to see a young kid spell it, “culler,” or something like that. Whether it’s an alternate spelling or an actual spelling error, it’s still pretty obvious what they mean. When it comes to the New Testament, the first and largest category is made up of spelling differences, accounting for over 75% of all textual variants.

  1. Many textual variants are synonyms, word order differences and stuff you can’t translate

The next biggest category is all about synonyms (different words that basically mean the same thing) and stuff like word order (which makes little difference in Greek) or articles with proper nouns. For example, Greek writers could use the definite article before people’s names (like “The Jesus”). In this case, whether or not the word “the” shows up before Jesus’ name makes no difference; you can’t even translate it into English!

  1. Some textual variants would have made a difference if they weren’t so late to the game

The third largest category is made up of variants that would have made a difference in the meaning of the text in our Bibles if they showed up earlier in the manuscript tradition. The thing is, these differences show up hundreds of years after Jesus’ time and so it’s pretty unlikely that they tell us anything about what the original documents really said. Another way to say this is that the more recent differences just tell us about how some copyists ended up changing the text.

  1. A few textual variants actually do make a difference…but none mess with any core doctrines

It’s true. There are real questions about the authenticity of some of the words and sentences in the New Testament. And that’s what the fourth category is about: Variants that actually do make a difference in what the text says and possibly represent the original readings of the text. But here’s the thing: None of them call any core doctrines into question. Not one.

I’ve looked into this for myself so please don’t let anyone tell you this is just the tip of the iceberg. These kinds of things represent less than 1% of all textual variants in the New Testament.

About The One Percent:

New Testament Textual Variants that Matter Most

We need to be honest and admit that, at least where our current scholarship is at, there are some good questions about a few parts of the New Testament. For example, most scholars believe the story about the woman caught in adultery wasn’t in the original text of the gospels. It actually shows up in different places in some manuscripts, including the margins or at the end of a page, almost like scribes who wanted to preserve the story didn’t know where they should be writing it down. But what kind of difference does this make? I like how Darrell Bock answers this question:

“What is impacted is whether or not a particular passage teaches a particular point. But in the big scheme of things, there is no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that is impacted by this one percent.”

Most people don’t know that even Bart Ehrman himself actually agrees with this in print. He mentions this in the question and answer section of Misquoting Jesus (p.252):

…essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

The Number of Textual Variants is Only One Part of the Story

To me, it seems misleading and unfair to say there are between 300,000 and 400,000 textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts we have today and leave it at that.

We’ve got so many variants because we’ve got so many New Testament manuscripts. If all we had were one codex with all the books of the New Testament in it, we wouldn’t have any variants!

Look, having almost 6,000 manuscripts—and not just one or even a dozen ancient, handwritten documents—is a very good thing because it can help us have more confidence in the readings which best represent the text of the original books of the New Testament. So the number of textual variants is only one part of the story.

Conclusion

The overwhelming majority of these textual variants don’t change the meaning of the text. No core doctrine of the Christian faith is called into question by any textual differences in the New Testament. None.

Instead of making us suspicious that we’ve lost the message, studying the text of the New Testament gives us confidence that the message has been faithfully preserved.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2p82RdB

/by

Five Reasons You Can Trust the Story of Christmas Is True (Free Bible Insert)

Detectives create lists. As a cold-case detective, I’m no different. When investigating an event in the distant past (in my case, an unsolved murder), I collect evidence, make lists and do my best to reach the most reasonable inference. When I began to investigate Christianity at the age of thirty-five, I approached the gospels the same way I approached my cold-case files. Lists were an important part of the process. One New Testament claim was particularly interesting to me: the conception and birth of Jesus. When I first read through the gospels, the birth narratives seemed incredible and unreasonable. I’m not the only person to express such a concern. In an article posted in the Herald Scotland, Reverend Andrew Frater called the Nativity story a “fanciful, fairy tale” and called on Christians to “disentangle the truth from the tinsel”. Frater is a minister and a believer, and even he doesn’t believe in the virgin conception of Jesus. As an atheist, I was even more skeptical. I rejected supernatural claims altogether, and the first Biblical claim about Jesus was a supernatural one. But as I collected the evidence and formed my lists, I found there were many good reasons to trust the story of Christmas. I’ve assembled them here with links to longer treatments of each topic:

Reason 1:
The Supernatural Nature of the Virgin Conception Shouldn’t Disqualify It
When I began to investigate the virgin conception, I was actually investigating my own philosophical naturalism. I was, in essence, asking the following questions: “Is the natural world all that exists?” “Is there anything beyond the physical, material world we measure with our five senses?” “Are supernatural events possible or even reasonable?” In asking these questions, I was putting naturalism to the test. It would have been unfair, therefore, to begin by presupposing nothing supernatural could ever exist or occur. If we want to be fair about assessing the virgin conception or any other supernatural aspect of the nativity story, we cannot exclude the very possibility of the supernatural in the first place. Our presupposition against the supernatural would unfairly taint our examination of the claim.

Reason 2:
The Claim of the Virgin Conception Appears Incredibly Early in Christian History
It’s always easier to tell a lie once everyone who was alive to know the difference has already died. But if you’re going to make a claim early in an area where people are still available to debunk your claim, be prepared to have a difficult time getting away with misrepresentations. The virgin conception of Jesus is one of the earliest claims in Christian history. The students of the gospel authors cited the virgin conception as a true claim about Jesus. Ignatius, the student of John (an Apostle who chose not to write about the birth of Jesus in his own gospel), included it in his early writings to local churches. Other Church leaders repeated the claim through the earliest years of the Church, and the doctrine also appears in the most ancient Church creeds. Even early non-canonical documents include the virgin conception of Jesus.

Reason 3:
The Birth Narratives in Luke and Matthew Are Not Late Additions
Critics, in an effort to argue the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew are not reliable, point to stylistic differences and “content shifting” within the gospels. Critics claim that the Greek language used in the birth narrative section of Luke’s gospel is far more Semitic than other sections. But the fact that this section of the gospel is stylistically or linguistically different than other sections does not mean it was a late addition. Luke told us he compiled the information for his gospel from a number of divergent sources (Luke 1:1-4). As a result, we should expect stylistic and linguistic differences within the gospel of Luke. In addition, any claim related to the late addition of the birth narratives defies all the manuscript evidence available to us; there is absolutely no evidence that the gospel of Matthew and Luke ever existed without the birth narratives. All manuscripts, translations, early Church documents and references to the gospels, along with every historic, reliable witness testifies to the fact that the birth narratives are ancient and part of the original record.

Reason 4:
The Virgin Conception Was Not An Invention of Early Christians
Some critics of the virgin conception argue that the earliest Christian authors inserted it in an effort to give Jesus a “heroic” birth consistent with other Old Testament heroes. But, not every Jewish hero from the Old Testament had an unusual birth story. Joshua, King David, and King Solomon are just three of the more obvious examples of powerful Old Testament heroes whose birth stories were less than surprising or unusual. In addition, there is no other character from the Old Testament who was born of a virgin through the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit. This characteristic of Jesus’ conception is unique to Jesus and follows no pre-existing Old Testament pattern.

Reason 5:
The Virgin Conception Wasn’t Borrowed from Another Source
Skeptics also attempt to discredit the virgin conception of Jesus by claiming it was borrowed from prior pagan mythologies such as those of Mithras or Horus. But any fair examination of pagan mythological birth narratives revels the dramatic differences between the virgin conception of Jesus and stories about the supernatural emergence of mythological gods. While “borrowing” may have occurred between belief systems, the weak resemblances between the Biblical account and pagan mythologies are far more likely the result of the Judeo-Christian influence rather than contamination from a pagan source. It’s irrational to believe the early Jewish readers of the gospels would embrace any part of paganism in the story of Jesus’ conception as continuous with the Jewish narrative from the Old Testament. In addition, early Christian converts were repeatedly called to a new life in Christ, told they were merely travelers passing through this mortal (and pagan) world, called to live a life that was free of worldly influences, and told to reject the foolish philosophies and stories of men. This group, in particular, would be the last to turn to pre-existing pagan stories and superstitions.

If there exists a supernatural Being capable of bringing all space, time and matter into existence from nothing, such a Being could certainly accomplish the virgin conception of Jesus, the Resurrection of Christ, or any of the other “lesser” miracles described on the pages of the New Testament. In addition, there is no historically, textually or philosophically necessary reason to reject the claims of the New Testament authors. If you’re a Christian this Christmas season, celebrate the birth of Jesus with confidence and certainty. The virgin conception is not a fanciful, fairy tale. It is a true story. In fact, there are five good reasons to trust the story of Christmas is factual, reliable and true.

To download a FREE, printable, Bible-sized insert summarizing these five reasons, visit the homepage at www.ColdCaseChristianity.com and click the link in the right column.

J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, Christian Case Maker, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity, Cold-Case Christianity for Kids, God’s Crime Scene, God’s Crime Scene for Kids, and Forensic Faith.

Comment or Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

/by

Is Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Horus Mythology?

,

What if I told you there was once an ancient religion whose God was conceived by a virgin named Meri and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)? What if I told you this God was born in a cave and his birth was announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds? He attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve (although the ancient texts describing this God are silent about His life from the age of 12 to 30). At 30 years of age, this God was baptized in a river (His baptizer was later beheaded). He had 12 disciples, performed miracles, exorcized demons, raised someone from the dead, and even walked on water. They called Him “Iusa”, the “ever-becoming son” and the “Holy Child”. He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount”, and his followers recounted his sayings. He was transfigured on a mount and eventually crucified between two thieves. He was buried for three days in a tomb and rose from the dead. His followers called Him “Way”, “the Truth the Light”, “Messiah”, “God’s Anointed Son”, “Son of Man”, “Good Shepherd”, “Lamb of God”, “Word made flesh”, “Word of Truth”, “the KRST” or “Anointed One”. He was also known as “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish, Lamb and Lion. According to this ancient religion, this God came to fulfill the Law and was supposed to reign one thousand years. Sounds a lot like Jesus doesn’t it? According to those who deny the existence of Jesus, however, this description is of a mythological precursor to Christianity, the Egyptian God named Horus. Skeptics sometimes use ancient deities like Horus, Mithras or Osiris as examples of dying and rising precursors to Jesus. They claim the mythology of Jesus was simply borrowed from pre-existing examples such as these.

Was Horus really like Jesus in all the ways skeptics often describe him? These similarities are startling. For many Christians (especially young believers who encounter this objection while in college) similarities such as these cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus. It’s important, therefore, to examine the truth of these claims to see what the real mythologies tell us about characters such as Horus. While it’s true there are a number of pre-Christian mythologies with dying saviors, they aren’t much like Jesus once you start to examine them closely. They often merely reflect the expectations and yearnings of ancient people for the God who truly did come to earth. A significant portion of what we just described about Horus is simply false and lacks any Egyptian historical or archeological support whatsoever. Much of what I described about Horus is simply a reflection of the effort of atheists to make Horus look as much like Jesus as possible.

Horus was worshiped principally in two Egyptian cultural centers (Bekhdet in the north and Idfu in the south). Little remains at the northern location, but there is still a large and well preserved Ptolemaic temple at Idfu; most of our information about Horus comes from this southern temple. Horus was usually represented as a falcon. He was the great sky God and the Son of Isis and Osiris. Let’s take a look at the claims we’ve already described and separate truth from fiction (for a more in depth examination of Horus and many other alleged Christian precursors, please visit David Anderson’s excellent website. I’m condensing much of his work in this brief blog post). We’ll also look at some of the reasonable expectations and motivations causing these mythologies to resemble Jesus:

Claim: Horus was conceived by a virgin mother named Meri, and had a stepfather named Seb (Joseph)
Truth: Horus was NOT conceived of a virgin. In fact, mural and textual evidence from Egypt indicates Isis (there is no evidence that “Meri” was ever part of her name) hovered over the erect penis (she created) of Osiris to conceive Horus. While she may have been a virgin before the conception, she utilized Osiris’ penis to conceive. She later had another son with Osiris as well. There is no evidence of three wise men as part of the Horus story at all. Seb was actually the “earth god”; He was not Horus’ earthly father. Seb is not the equivalent of Joseph and, in most cases, Seb is described as Osiris’ father.

Claim: Horus was born in a cave, his birth announced by an angel, heralded by a star and attended by shepherds.
Truth: There is no reference to a cave or manger in the Egyptian birth story of Horus. In fact, none of these details are present in the ancient Egyptian stories of Horus. Horus was born in a swamp. His birth was not heralded by an angel. There was no star.

Claim: Horus attended a special rite of passage at the age of twelve and there is no data on the child from the age of 12 to 30.
Truth: There is no continuous effort in the Horus mythology to account for all these years, so there are no real gaps in the chronology. Horus never taught in any temple at twelve (as did Jesus).

(Read More)

/by
Matthew Gospel New Testament

¿Quién escribió el Evangelio de Mateo?

Por Brian Chilton

En el curso de las siguientes semanas, discutiremos las razones para aceptar los puntos de vista tradicionales para la autoría del Nuevo Testamento. Hoy comenzaremos con el Evangelio de Mateo y luego nos moveremos hacia los otros tres Evangelios antes de mirar algunas de las cartas en Apocalipsis.

El Nuevo Testamento comienza con el Evangelio de Mateo. Pero ¿qué sabemos del origen del primer evangelio? En un mundo donde la erudición tradicional es a menudo cuestionada y con demasiada frecuencia ignorada, existen varias teorías a las que puede ser el autor del Primer Evangelio. Tradicionalmente, la iglesia ha atribuido el primer evangelio al apóstol conocido como Mateo. Pero ¿qué evidencia encontramos sobre el autor del primer libro del Nuevo Testamento?

Matthew Gospel New Testament

Evidencia interna

Cuando discutimos evidencia interna, estamos hablando de la evidencia que encontramos dentro del libro en cuestión. ¿Qué pistas encontramos sobre el autor del primer Evangelio del texto? Al igual que los otros tres Evangelios, el Primer Evangelio es anónimo.

Primero, encontramos que el autor del Primer Evangelio está profundamente arraigado en el judaísmo. El autor a menudo cita la Biblia hebrea (también conocida como el Antiguo Testamento). Él es paralelo a la vida de Jesús con los grandes profetas del judaísmo. Además, hace todo lo posible para demostrar que Jesús es el cumplimiento de la profecía mesiánica. De muchas maneras, el autor del Primer Evangelio se centra en los aspectos judíos de la fe, incluso describiendo algunas áreas como la cláusula de exclusión de Jesús para el divorcio. El escritor del Primer Evangelio también se centra un poco más en los mensajes de Jesús que algunos de los otros escritores del Evangelio.

En segundo lugar, el autor se centra en la obra de Jesús en Galilea y no se centra tanto en el trabajo de Jesús con los gentiles como lo hace Lucas. Por lo tanto, el evangelista se ocupa principalmente del ministerio de Jesús a los judíos.

Finalmente, el autor del Primer Evangelio agrega detalles financieros que sólo se encuentran en el Primer Evangelio. Por ejemplo, sólo el Primer Evangelio registra la incidencia donde los que recaudaron el impuesto del templo “se acercaron a Pedro y le dijeron: ¿No paga tu maestro el impuesto del templo?”(Mateo 17:24)[1]

De todos los detalles considerados con la evidencia interna (uno que es completamente judío en el alcance de los mensajes presentados por Jesús, uno que se centra en el cumplimiento profético de Jesús, uno que se centra en el ministerio de Jesús a los judíos y uno que se centra en materias financieras especialmente en el área de impuestos), Mateo encaja mejor como autor del Primer Evangelio. Mateo era recaudador de impuestos antes de aceptar a Jesús como Salvador y de su papel como apóstol. Por lo tanto, el conocimiento de Mateo de la taquigrafía para tomar notas, así como las finanzas sería muy superior a la mayoría de los demás.

Evidencia externa

Cuando hablamos de evidencia externa, estamos tratando la información que tenemos sobre la autoría de un documento fuera del documento. ¿Qué dicen los demás acerca del autor del Primer Evangelio?

La iglesia primitiva es unánime en su aceptación de Mateo como el escritor del Primer Evangelio. Papías, Ireneo, Panteno y Orígenes relatan a Mateo como el escritor del Primer Evangelio. Papías (c. d.C. 60-130) escribió: “Mateo reunió los oráculos [del Señor] en el idioma hebreo, y cada uno los interpretó como mejor pudo”.[2] Aunque no tenemos una edición hebrea o aramea del Evangelio de Mateo, hay informes de que una pudo haber existido en la iglesia primitiva.[3] No obstante, uno no debe sorprenderse de que Mateo, que necesitaría tener un gran conocimiento del griego en el mundo de los negocios, originalmente escribió su Evangelio en hebreo o arameo, sólo para revisar el Evangelio en griego. Incluso si su Evangelio fue escrito en griego por otro, incluso decir un amanuense,[4] esto no negaría la autoría de Mateo. Craig Evans recientemente grabó un video en el que afirma que Mateo pudo haber surgido en fases.[5]

Panteno también confirmó que Mateo fue el autor del Primer Evangelio. El gran historiador de la iglesia, Eusebio de Cesárea, escribe que Panteno, un líder de la iglesia a finales del siglo 2 o posiblemente a principios del siglo III, se encontró con la versión hebrea del Evangelio de Mateo. Eusebio señala que Panteno fue “un hombre muy distinguido por su aprendizaje, encargado de la escuela de los fieles en Alejandría”.[6] Lo que sigue es el informe de Eusebio sobre el encuentro de Panteno con la edición hebrea del Evangelio de Mateo:

Se ha informado de que entre las personas que conocían a Cristo, encontró el Evangelio según Mateo, que había anticipado su propia llegada. Porque Bartolomé, uno de los apóstoles, les había predicado y les había dejado la escritura de Mateo en lengua hebrea, la cual habían conservado hasta entonces.[7]

Con la adición de Orígenes y la aceptación de Ireneo de Mateo como escritor el Primer Evangelio, uno está muy presionado para desestimar sus afirmaciones.

Además, los eruditos reconocen que el nombre de Mateo fue asociado con el primer evangelio de los tiempos más tempranos. Los escritores de la CSB Study Bible denotan que “el título que atribuye este Evangelio a Mateo aparece en los primeros manuscritos y es posiblemente original. Los títulos se hicieron necesarios para distinguir un Evangelio de otro cuando los cuatro Evangelios empezaron a circular como una sola colección”.[8]

Fecha y lugar de escritura

Ciertamente es razonable aceptar que Mateo fue escrito en los años 50 debido a la asunción comprensible de que los Hechos fueron terminados antes del año 64 d.C., con Lucas apareciendo antes de Hechos y Mateo escribiendo su Evangelio antes de Lucas. Los eruditos generalmente sostienen que Mateo compuso su Evangelio en o alrededor de Antioquía de Siria.

Conclusión

Algunos pueden argumentar que un discípulo como Mateo no pediría prestado material de Marcos, si, de hecho, es cierto que Mateo tomó prestado material del Evangelio de Marcos. Sin embargo, cuando uno considera que Mateo siguió a Jesús mucho después que la mayoría de los apóstoles, y que Mateo no era un discípulo del círculo interno; entonces es lógico que Mateo tomara prestado material del Evangelio de Marcos si, es cierto, que Marcos transmitió información de Simón Pedro, quien era tanto uno de los primeros apóstoles como un discípulo del círculo interno.

Aunque algunos todavía no están de acuerdo, me parece extraño atribuir el Primer Evangelio a Mateo de todas las personas, especialmente cuando el Primer Evangelio fue utilizado como manual de la iglesia en muchos casos. Mateo era recaudador de impuestos. Los recaudadores de impuestos se mantuvieron en una estimación ligeramente superior a la escoria del estanque… pero no por mucho. Entonces, ¿por qué atribuir el Primer Evangelio a un recaudador de impuestos a menos que haya al menos algún mérito para la reclamación?

En mi humilde opinión, creo que el Primer Evangelio vino a nosotros en tres fases. Primero, el apóstol Mateo escribió las enseñanzas de Jesús en arameo. Entonces, Mateo añadió los milagros y hechos de Jesús a su edición aramea y / o hebrea de su Evangelio añadiendo su testimonio de testigos oculares y el testimonio de Simón Pedro como se encuentra en el Evangelio de Marcos. Finalmente, ya sea Mateo o un escribano altamente entrenado tradujo el Evangelio al griego.

Notas

[1] A menos que se indique lo contrario, todas las Escrituras citadas provienen de la Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Papías, “Fragments de Papías”, en The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson y A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 155.

[3] Creo que es Jerónimo quien reporta haber visto un Evangelio hebreo de Mateo. ¿Pero es esto lo mismo? No podemos saberlo con seguridad.

[4] Es decir, un escribano que escribe las palabras que se dictan a sí mismo. A algunos amanuenses se les dio libertad para agregar sus propias expresiones a un grado.

[5] Video grabado para Faith Life. No pude encontrar el enlace. Voy a publicar el enlace si soy capaz de encontrarlo.

[6] Eusebio de Cesárea, “The Church History of Eusebius,” en Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff y Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), 224.

[7] Ibid., 225.

[8] “Introduction to Matthew,” CSB Study Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017), 1494.

 

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el presentador de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidad en Liberty University (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Christian Apologetics (Apologética cristiana) de la Universidad de Biola. Brian actualmente está inscrito en el programa Ph.D. en Teología y apologética en Liberty University. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2mMVEOA

Traducido y editado por Jairo Izquierdo

/by

Merry Christmas from Newsweek!

, , ,

As has become common around Christian holidays, another media outlet has issued what I think can rightly be called an attack piece. Newsweek rolled out a cover story for this week’s edition that attacks the Bible and the warrant for trusting that we even know what it says as well as its content:

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

I’m all for free speech and critiquing all viewpoints including religious ones but this article makes egregious factual errors. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, a world-renowned expert on early manuscripts of the New Testament (and shown in this picture), has responded to this article by pointing out numerous mistakes and some key omissions that make it quite misleading:

Predictable Christmas fare: Newsweek’s Tirade against the Bible

I’ve had the honor of getting acquainted with Dan the last couple of years as I’ve become involved in the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts which he founded. This organization is doing incredibly important work to combat the kind of misconceptions propagated by this Newsweek article. Check out their web site to see how they’re digitizing early New Testament manuscripts and along the way even discovering new documents that are confirming our confidence in the transmission of these Biblical texts. I’ve found Dan to be fair-minded, incredibly knowledgeable, and sacrificially committed to the noble task of learning as much as we can from the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament books.

Here is a sampling of some of Wallace’s corrections but I recommend that you read his entire article:

Newsweek: “At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.”

Wallace: “This is rhetorical flair run amok so badly that it gives hyperbole a bad name. A “translation of translations of translations” would mean, at a minimum, that we are dealing with a translation that is at least three languages removed from the original. But the first translation is at best a translation of a fourth generation copy in the original language. Now, I’m ignoring completely his last line—“and on and on, hundreds of times”—a line that is completely devoid of any resemblance to reality. Is it really true that we only have access to third generation translations from fourth generation Greek manuscripts? Hardly…. Almost 6000 of these [20,000+] manuscripts are in Greek alone. And we have more than one million quotations of the New Testament by church fathers. There is absolutely nothing in the Greco-Roman world that comes even remotely close to this wealth of data. The New Testament has more manuscripts that are within a century or two of the original than anything else from the Greco-Roman world too. If we have to be skeptical about what the original New Testament said, that skepticism, on average, should be multiplied one thousand times for other Greco-Roman literature.”

 

Newsweek: “About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament.”

Wallace: “The oldest complete New Testament that exists today is Codex Sinaiticus, written about AD 350… the reality [of the delay between completion of the New Testament and our oldest extant copy in complete form] is closer to 250–300 years (conservative), or 200–250 years (liberal). Yet even here the notion of “compilation into the New Testament” may be misleading: the original New Testament manuscripts were undoubtedly written on papyrus rolls, each of which could contain no more than one Gospel. It was not until the invention of the codex form of book, and its development into a large format, that the possibility of putting all the NT books between two covers could even exist.”

 

Newsweek: Constantine “changed the course of Christian history, ultimately influencing which books made it into the New Testament.”

Wallace: “This is an old canard that has no basis in reality. In fact, Eichenwald seems to know this because he does not bring it up again, but instead speaks about the Council of Nicea (initiated by Constantine) as dealing primarily with the deity of Christ. There is absolutely nothing to suggest in any of the historical literature that Constantine ever influenced what books belonged in the NT.”

There are many more examples such as these so please check out both Wallace’s response as well as the Newsweek article so you can understand the misconceptions that are being propagated in our culture and how to correct them. In summary, Newsweek’s article about the Bible is factually flawed, blatantly biased, and embarrassingly egregious in audaciously attacking a simplistic straw man. Other than that it’s a pretty good article.

/by